Dr. Graham Oppy, the moderator, is a well-known atheist philosopher. He let Dr. Krauss speak for 21 minutes and 40 seconds, which is why my summary of Krauss is so long.

The video:

Summary

After careful consideration, I decided not to be snarky at all in this summary. What you read below is what happened. There may be some small mistakes, but I will fix those if people tell me about them. I also included some quotes and timestamps for the more striking things that Dr. Krauss said.

The debate itself starts at 4:50 with Dr. Craig’s opening speech. He does use slides to show the structure of his arguments.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech. (4:50)

The kalam cosmological argument:

God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe

The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem supports the absolute beginning of the universe

Even if our universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse itself would have to have an absolute beginning

Speculative cosmologies try to challenge the Big Bang theory, but none of them – even if true – can establish that the past is eternal

Only two types of things could explain the origin of spece, time, matter and energy – either abstract objects or minds

Abstract objects do not cause effects, but minds do cause effects (we do it ourselves)

A mind is the best explanation for the origin of the universe

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:

The underlying structure of nature is mathematical – mathematics is applicable to nature

Mathematical objects can either be abstract objects or useful fiction

Either way, there is no reason to expect that nature should be linked to abstract objects or fictions

But a divine mind that wants humans to understand nature is a better explanation for what we see

The cosmic fine-tuning for the existence of intelligent life

There are two kinds of finely-tuned initial conditions: 1) cosmological constants and 2) quantities

These constants and quantities have to be set within a narrow range in order to permit intelligent life

There are three explanations for this observation: law, chance or design

Law is rejected because they are put in at the beginning or matter – they don’t emerge from matter

Chance must be rejected, because they odds are just too long unless you appeal to a world-ensemble

We do not observe what the world ensemble hypothesis predicts that we should observe

Design is the best explanation for finely-tuned constants and quantities

The existence of objective moral values and duties

Our experience of morality (values and duties) is that it is objectively real and incumbent on us

When someone goes into a classroom and shoots at innocent children, that is objectively wrong

On naturalism, moral values and moral duties do not exist – they are conventional and variable by time and place

The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is that God exists

The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus

There are three widely-accepted facts that are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis

1) the empty tomb, 2) the post-mortem appearances, 3) the early church’s belief in the resurrection

Naturalistic attempts to explain these 3 boilerplate facts fail

The best explanation of the 3 minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead

The immediate experience of God

Belief in God is a “properly basic” belief – rational even without arguments because of experience of God

“We get back aches” therefore “This argument that [the universe] is fine-tuned for life is nonsense”

William Lane Craig can be proven to exhibit homosexual behavior using logical arguments

Look, you can construct arguments that are clearly wrong

Premise 1: “All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior”

Premise 2: “William Lane Craig is a mammal”

Seems to be saying that logical arguments can prove false things “it’s nonsense”

Dr. Craig distorted a podcast that some group made on pain receptors

Dr. Craig’s faith is so strong that it causes him to distort what this group said

Discussion: (44:35)

I will not be summarizing everything that was said, just a few main points.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning

Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion

Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed

Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for

(as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)

Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)

Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty

Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have

Craig: And you agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)

Moderator: One at a time

Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…

(I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…

Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!

Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want

Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”

Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”

Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this: (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’

Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”

Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”

Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown

(Craig turns away and looks through his papers)

Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”

Krauss: “No”

Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”

Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”

Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”

Craig: “Right”

I noticed that a huge number of atheist web sites are taking the Vilenkin quote that Krauss used out of context, like this one and this one. There are probably a lot more of them like that, which I think is interesting. That’s why we have these debates, I guess. To set the record straight about who accuses people of being dishonest, and who is actually dishonest.

Fine-tuning:

Krauss tried to argue that he had explained the fine-tuning with the Higgs particle, but Dr. Craig said that only applied to the cosmological constant, not all the other examples of fine-tuning. Krauss said that it wasn’t impressive that this universe permitted life and that “It would have been much more surprising if we evolved in a universe in which we couldn’t live”. Krauss argued the fine-tuning was only for “Life like us”. But Dr. Craig explained that the fine-tuning is what allows us to have the basics of any kind of life, like slow-burning stars, chemical diversity, etc. – things that are required for basic minimal life functions in any living system. Craig said that he was working with the current physical laws of this universe (F = ma, etc.) and that he was looking at what changed if we changed those even slightly. Krauss tried to say that if he changed things like the mass of particles then the strength of forces would change. (But the forces aren’t laws!) Krauss argued that the cosmological constant would be even better for life if it was zero, and Craig said that the life permitting range did include zero, but that the range of life-permitting values was narrow.

Jesus’ existence:

Craig reponded to the mystery religions charge, the charge that the evidence for the minimal facts is too late/too weak, the charge that grief visions explained the evidence better, and Hume’s argument against miracles. Craig brought up the early creed from 1 Cor 15:3-7 and explained to Krauss that it was 5 years after the events, and that Jewish standards of oral transmission were strong enough to ensure that the creed was reliable, and most of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

Audience Q and A: (1:21:09)

The first topic is the grounding of morality. Krauss agrees that there is no objective morality and no objective moral oughts. He also said that that standards of behavior are arbitrary, and that they change over time and they are adopted for promoting social order. Dr. Craig pressed the point that science itself would collapse without ethical values. It assumes them, but cannot ground them.

The next topic was free will. Krauss is a determinist. Craig asked him how he could reconcile moral responsibility with determinism.

The next topic was the effectiveness of mathematics. Krauss didn’t have an explanation for it and didn’t think it needed one. Then they got into whether the Genesis has been verified by science and whether it is meant to be taken literally.

The next topic was whether philosophy makes any progress. Craig gave the example of verificationism being rejected as too narrow, and self-refuting. Krauss: “I’m going to come to the defense of philosophy for the first time”. Craig: “That’s amazing!” Krauss said that science provides new knowledge. Craig said there were some things that could be known apart from science.

The beginning of the universe is more at home in a theistic worldview than an atheistic one

The beginning of the universe fits in well with the Bible, e.g. – Genesis 1, Titus 1, etc.

In case you are wondering about what the evidence is for the Big Bang, here are 3 of the evidences that are most commonly offered:

Three main observational results over the past century led astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang. First, they found out that the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. This led them to deduce that everything used to be extremely close together before some kind of explosion. Second, the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe’s beginning that Stephen Hawking said, “It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time.”

By the way, Dr. Meyer also does a great job of explaining the problem of proteins, DNA and the origin of life in this lecture. And you can hear him defend his views in this debate podcast with Keith Fox and in this debate podcast with Peter Atkins. He does a great job in these debates.

Dr. Graham Oppy, the moderator, is a well-known atheist philosopher. He let Dr. Krauss speak for 21 minutes and 40 seconds, which is why my summary of Krauss is so long.

The video:

Summary

After careful consideration, I decided not to be snarky at all in this summary. What you read below is what happened. There may be some small mistakes, but I will fix those if people tell me about them. I also included some quotes and timestamps for the more striking things that Dr. Krauss said.

The debate itself starts at 4:50 with Dr. Craig’s opening speech. He does use slides to show the structure of his arguments.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech. (4:50)

The kalam cosmological argument:

God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe

The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem supports the absolute beginning of the universe

Even if our universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse itself would have to have an absolute beginning

Speculative cosmologies try to challenge the Big Bang theory, but none of them – even if true – can establish that the past is eternal

Only two types of things could explain the origin of spece, time, matter and energy – either abstract objects or minds

Abstract objects do not cause effects, but minds do cause effects (we do it ourselves)

A mind is the best explanation for the origin of the universe

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:

The underlying structure of nature is mathematical – mathematics is applicable to nature

Mathematical objects can either be abstract objects or useful fiction

Either way, there is no reason to expect that nature should be linked to abstract objects or fictions

But a divine mind that wants humans to understand nature is a better explanation for what we see

The cosmic fine-tuning for the existence of intelligent life

There are two kinds of finely-tuned initial conditions: 1) cosmological constants and 2) quantities

These constants and quantities have to be set within a narrow range in order to permit intelligent life

There are three explanations for this observation: law, chance or design

Law is rejected because they are put in at the beginning or matter – they don’t emerge from matter

Chance must be rejected, because they odds are just too long unless you appeal to a world-ensemble

We do not observe what the world ensemble hypothesis predicts that we should observe

Design is the best explanation for finely-tuned constants and quantities

The existence of objective moral values and duties

Our experience of morality (values and duties) is that it is objectively real and incumbent on us

When someone goes into a classroom and shoots at innocent children, that is objectively wrong

On naturalism, moral values and moral duties do not exist – they are conventional and variable by time and place

The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is that God exists

The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus

There are three widely-accepted facts that are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis

1) the empty tomb, 2) the post-mortem appearances, 3) the early church’s belief in the resurrection

Naturalistic attempts to explain these 3 boilerplate facts fail

The best explanation of the 3 minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead

The immediate experience of God

Belief in God is a “properly basic” belief – rational even without arguments because of experience of God

“We get back aches” therefore “This argument that [the universe] is fine-tuned for life is nonsense”

William Lane Craig can be proven to exhibit homosexual behavior using logical arguments

Look, you can construct arguments that are clearly wrong

Premise 1: “All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior”

Premise 2: “William Lane Craig is a mammal”

Seems to be saying that logical arguments can prove false things “it’s nonsense”

Dr. Craig distorted a podcast that some group made on pain receptors

Dr. Craig’s faith is so strong that it causes him to distort what this group said

Discussion: (44:35)

I will not be summarizing everything that was said, just a few main points.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning

Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion

Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed

Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for

(as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)

Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)

Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty

Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have

Craig: And you agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)

Moderator: One at a time

Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…

(I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…

Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!

Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want

Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”

Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”

Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this: (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’

Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”

Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”

Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown

(Craig turns away and looks through his papers)

Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”

Krauss: “No”

Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”

Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”

Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”

Craig: “Right”

I noticed that a huge number of atheist web sites are taking the Vilenkin quote that Krauss used out of context, like this one and this one. There are probably a lot more of them like that, which I think is interesting. That’s why we have these debates, I guess. To set the record straight about who accuses people of being dishonest, and who is actually dishonest.

Fine-tuning:

Krauss tried to argue that he had explained the fine-tuning with the Higgs particle, but Dr. Craig said that only applied to the cosmological constant, not all the other examples of fine-tuning. Krauss said that it wasn’t impressive that this universe permitted life and that “It would have been much more surprising if we evolved in a universe in which we couldn’t live”. Krauss argued the fine-tuning was only for “Life like us”. But Dr. Craig explained that the fine-tuning is what allows us to have the basics of any kind of life, like slow-burning stars, chemical diversity, etc. – things that are required for basic minimal life functions in any living system. Craig said that he was working with the current physical laws of this universe (F = ma, etc.) and that he was looking at what changed if we changed those even slightly. Krauss tried to say that if he changed things like the mass of particles then the strength of forces would change. (But the forces aren’t laws!) Krauss argued that the cosmological constant would be even better for life if it was zero, and Craig said that the life permitting range did include zero, but that the range of life-permitting values was narrow.

Jesus’ existence:

Craig reponded to the mystery religions charge, the charge that the evidence for the minimal facts is too late/too weak, the charge that grief visions explained the evidence better, and Hume’s argument against miracles. Craig brought up the early creed from 1 Cor 15:3-7 and explained to Krauss that it was 5 years after the events, and that Jewish standards of oral transmission were strong enough to ensure that the creed was reliable, and most of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

Audience Q and A: (1:21:09)

The first topic is the grounding of morality. Krauss agrees that there is no objective morality and no objective moral oughts. He also said that that standards of behavior are arbitrary, and that they change over time and they are adopted for promoting social order. Dr. Craig pressed the point that science itself would collapse without ethical values. It assumes them, but cannot ground them.

The next topic was free will. Krauss is a determinist. Craig asked him how he could reconcile moral responsibility with determinism.

The next topic was the effectiveness of mathematics. Krauss didn’t have an explanation for it and didn’t think it needed one. Then they got into whether the Genesis has been verified by science and whether it is meant to be taken literally.

The next topic was whether philosophy makes any progress. Craig gave the example of verificationism being rejected as too narrow, and self-refuting. Krauss: “I’m going to come to the defense of philosophy for the first time”. Craig: “That’s amazing!” Krauss said that science provides new knowledge. Craig said there were some things that could be known apart from science.

The MIT physicist says that the fine-tuning is real, and is best explained by positing the existence of an infinite number of universes that are not fine-tuned – the so-called multiverse.

Excerpt:

While challenging the Platonic dream of theoretical physicists, the multiverse idea does explain one aspect of our universe that has unsettled some scientists for years: according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine-­tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.

If such conclusions are correct, the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”

Intelligent design, however, is an answer to fine-tuning that does not appeal to most scientists. The multiverse offers another explanation. If there are countless different universes with different properties—for example, some with nuclear forces much stronger than in our universe and some with nuclear forces much weaker—then some of those universes will allow the emergence of life and some will not. Some of those universes will be dead, lifeless hulks of matter and energy, and others will permit the emergence of cells, plants and animals, minds. From the huge range of possible universes predicted by the theories, the fraction of universes with life is undoubtedly small. But that doesn’t matter. We live in one of the universes that permits life because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

I thought I was going to have to go outside this article to refute the multiverse, but Lightman is honest enough to refute it himself:

The… conjecture that there are many other worlds… [T]here is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.

The multiverse is not pure nonsense, it is theoretically possible. The problem is that the multiverse generator itself would require fine-tuning, so the multiverse doesn’t get rid of the problem. And, as Lightman indicates, we have no independent experimental evidence for the existence of the multiverse in any case. Atheists just have to take it on faith, and hope that their speculations will be proved right. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning is just as easily explained by postulating God, and we have independent evidence for God’s existence, like the the origin of biological information, the sudden appearance of animal body plans, the argument from consciousness, and so on. Even if the naturalists could explain the fine-tuning, they would still have a lot of explaining to do. Theism (intelligent causation) is the simplest explanation for all of the things we learn from the progress of science.

We need to be frank about atheists and their objections to the progress of science. Within the last 100 years, we have discovered that the physical universe came into being out of nothing 15 billion years ago, and we have discovered that this one universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life. I don’t think it’s like that the last 100 years of scientific progress on the origins question are going to be overturned so that science once again affirms what atheists believe about the universe. Things are going the wrong way for atheists – at least with respect to science.

See it in action

To see these arguments examined in a debate with a famous atheist, simply watch the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, and judge which debater is willing to form his beliefs on scientific progress, and which debater is forming his beliefs against the science we have today, and hoping that the good science we have today based on experiments will be overturned by speculative theories at some point in the future. When you watch that debate, it becomes very clear that Christian theists are interested in conforming their beliefs to science, and atheists are very interested in speculating against what science has shown in order to maintain their current pre-scientific view. That’s not what rational people ought to do when confronted with evidence.

Dr. Graham Oppy, the moderator, is a well-known atheist philosopher. He let Dr. Krauss speak for 21 minutes and 40 seconds, which is why my summary of Krauss is so long.

The video:

Summary

After careful consideration, I decided not to be snarky at all in this summary. What you read below is what happened. There may be some small mistakes, but I will fix those if people tell me about them. I also included some quotes and timestamps for the more striking things that Dr. Krauss said.

The debate itself starts at 4:50 with Dr. Craig’s opening speech. He does use slides to show the structure of his arguments.

Dr. Craig’s opening speech. (4:50)

The kalam cosmological argument:

God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe

The Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem supports the absolute beginning of the universe

Even if our universe is part of a multiverse, the multiverse itself would have to have an absolute beginning

Speculative cosmologies try to challenge the Big Bang theory, but none of them – even if true – can establish that the past is eternal

Only two types of things could explain the origin of spece, time, matter and energy – either abstract objects or minds

Abstract objects do not cause effects, but minds do cause effects (we do it ourselves)

A mind is the best explanation for the origin of the universe

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics:

The underlying structure of nature is mathematical – mathematics is applicable to nature

Mathematical objects can either be abstract objects or useful fiction

Either way, there is no reason to expect that nature should be linked to abstract objects or fictions

But a divine mind that wants humans to understand nature is a better explanation for what we see

The cosmic fine-tuning for the existence of intelligent life

There are two kinds of finely-tuned initial conditions: 1) cosmological constants and 2) quantities

These constants and quantities have to be set within a narrow range in order to permit intelligent life

There are three explanations for this observation: law, chance or design

Law is rejected because they are put in at the beginning or matter – they don’t emerge from matter

Chance must be rejected, because they odds are just too long unless you appeal to a world-ensemble

We do not observe what the world ensemble hypothesis predicts that we should observe

Design is the best explanation for finely-tuned constants and quantities

The existence of objective moral values and duties

Our experience of morality (values and duties) is that it is objectively real and incumbent on us

When someone goes into a classroom and shoots at innocent children, that is objectively wrong

On naturalism, moral values and moral duties do not exist – they are conventional and variable by time and place

The best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties is that God exists

The historicity of the resurrection of Jesus

There are three widely-accepted facts that are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis

1) the empty tomb, 2) the post-mortem appearances, 3) the early church’s belief in the resurrection

Naturalistic attempts to explain these 3 boilerplate facts fail

The best explanation of the 3 minimal facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead

The immediate experience of God

Belief in God is a “properly basic” belief – rational even without arguments because of experience of God

“We get back aches” therefore “This argument that [the universe] is fine-tuned for life is nonsense”

William Lane Craig can be proven to exhibit homosexual behavior using logical arguments

Look, you can construct arguments that are clearly wrong

Premise 1: “All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior”

Premise 2: “William Lane Craig is a mammal”

Seems to be saying that logical arguments can prove false things “it’s nonsense”

Dr. Craig distorted a podcast that some group made on pain receptors

Dr. Craig’s faith is so strong that it causes him to distort what this group said

Discussion: (44:35)

I will not be summarizing everything that was said, just a few main points.

The segment from 52:18 to 57:12 about the Vilenkin e-mail on the BVG theorem is a must-see. Krauss is standing up and gesticulating while Craig is calmly trying to quote a paper by Vilenkin that shows that Krauss is misrepresenting Vilenkin. Krauss constantly interrupts him. After a while, when Craig exposes him as having misrepresented Vilenkin and gets him to admit that all current eternal models of the universe are probably wrong, he quietens down and can’t even look at Craig in the face.

Cosmological argument:

Craig: The e-mail says any universe that is expanding, on average, requires a beginning

Craig: There are two models – Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen – where there is a period of contraction before the expansion

Craig: The two models are the ones cited in the e-mail that Dr. Krauss showed

Craig: In the very paper by Vilenkin that I cited, he says that both of those models don’t work

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Vilenkin said that they have to make an assumption about entropy that they have no rationale for

(as Craig starts to talk Krauss makes an exaggerated, disrespectful gesture and sits down in a huff)

Craig: Yes, an unwarranted assumption means that they don’t have EVIDENCE for their theories being correct

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “All the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning but WE DON’T KNOW!!!!!!!” (raising his voice)

Craig: I’m not saying that we know that the universe had a beginning with certainty

Craig: I am saying that the beginning of the universe is more probably true than false based on the evidence we have

Craig: And you agree with me about that – you think the universe had a beginning

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) (Unintelligible)

Moderator: One at a time

Craig: In your Vilenkin e-mail slide, at the end of the paragraph where the two models are mentioned that Vilenkin specifically shows…

(I am guessing that Craig is going to ask why so much of what Vilenkin wrote has been cut out of the e-mail that Krauss showed)

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) Because it was technical…

Moderator: Lawrence! Hang on a sec!

Craig: He specifically shows that these models are not past eternal, and that they require a beginning just like the others…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) We can do the math if you want

Craig: Now wait. I couldn’t help notice that there on your slide there was a series of ellipsis points indicating missing text…

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “Yeah, because it was technical!”

Craig: “I wonder what you deleted from the original letter”

Krauss: (agitated and interrupting) “I just told you!”

Craig: “Now wait. Could it have been something like this: (reads a quote from Vilenkin) ‘You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase.’

Craig: “That’s Vilenkin.”

Krauss: “In this paper, that’s absolutely right”

Krauss: But it’s ok for theories to assume things that we know are wrong – they are still good theories – it’s unknown

(Craig turns away and looks through his papers)

Craig: “Isn’t it true that the only viable quantum gravity models on order today involve a beginning – have a finite past?”

Krauss: “No”

Craig: “Well, can you give us one then”

Krauss: (talks about a variety of possible eternal models) “In my experience in science, all of them are probably wrong”

Krauss: “You know most theories are wrong, which is why, you know, it’s hard”

Craig: “Right”

I noticed that a huge number of atheist web sites are taking the Vilenkin quote that Krauss used out of context, like this one and this one. There are probably a lot more of them like that, which I think is interesting. That’s why we have these debates, I guess. To set the record straight about who accuses people of being dishonest, and who is actually dishonest.

Fine-tuning:

Krauss tried to argue that he had explained the fine-tuning with the Higgs particle, but Dr. Craig said that only applied to the cosmological constant, not all the other examples of fine-tuning. Krauss said that it wasn’t impressive that this universe permitted life and that “It would have been much more surprising if we evolved in a universe in which we couldn’t live”. Krauss argued the fine-tuning was only for “Life like us”. But Dr. Craig explained that the fine-tuning is what allows us to have the basics of any kind of life, like slow-burning stars, chemical diversity, etc. – things that are required for basic minimal life functions in any living system. Craig said that he was working with the current physical laws of this universe (F = ma, etc.) and that he was looking at what changed if we changed those even slightly. Krauss tried to say that if he changed things like the mass of particles then the strength of forces would change. (But the forces aren’t laws!) Krauss argued that the cosmological constant would be even better for life if it was zero, and Craig said that the life permitting range did include zero, but that the range of life-permitting values was narrow.

Jesus’ existence:

Craig reponded to the mystery religions charge, the charge that the evidence for the minimal facts is too late/too weak, the charge that grief visions explained the evidence better, and Hume’s argument against miracles. Craig brought up the early creed from 1 Cor 15:3-7 and explained to Krauss that it was 5 years after the events, and that Jewish standards of oral transmission were strong enough to ensure that the creed was reliable, and most of the eyewitnesses would still have been alive.

Audience Q and A: (1:21:09)

The first topic is the grounding of morality. Krauss agrees that there is no objective morality and no objective moral oughts. He also said that that standards of behavior are arbitrary, and that they change over time and they are adopted for promoting social order. Dr. Craig pressed the point that science itself would collapse without ethical values. It assumes them, but cannot ground them.

The next topic was free will. Krauss is a determinist. Craig asked him how he could reconcile moral responsibility with determinism.

The next topic was the effectiveness of mathematics. Krauss didn’t have an explanation for it and didn’t think it needed one. Then they got into whether the Genesis has been verified by science and whether it is meant to be taken literally.

The next topic was whether philosophy makes any progress. Craig gave the example of verificationism being rejected as too narrow, and self-refuting. Krauss: “I’m going to come to the defense of philosophy for the first time”. Craig: “That’s amazing!” Krauss said that science provides new knowledge. Craig said there were some things that could be known apart from science.